Template talk:Prevnext

Huh?

Why do we want to have a "next/previous" box showing continuity, series, and publication? Unless I'm totally missing what you're trying to say, using Adventure 365 as an example:

• "Next continuity" is "Post-Crisis"
• "Next series" is Action Comics
• "Next publication" is Adventure Comics 366

What obvious thing am I missing about why this is a good idea as implemented here? -- Omnicom 20:35, 29 November 2007 (PST)

Reboot can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe you are misinterpreting the meaning of the three "nexts". For Adventure Comics #365, the three links would be:

• "Next (in story) continuity" is Adventure Comics #366
• "Next (in the same) series" is Adventure Comics #366
• "Next (in) publication (order)" is Action Comics #360

In some cases, the next issue in all three categories would be the same issue, in some cases three different issues. Next in continuity might be the second story in the same issue, a flashback story, etc. Looking at the same basic time period as your example, going back 10 issues or so to Adv 353, the next issue in continuity is Adv 356, as the 2 intervening Adv issues are a double-length Adult Legion story. If a casual browser is flipping through issues in the wiki in sequence, they can choose several different paths to follow.

The one drawback I see to the current template is that it appears at the bottom of the page, so someone browsing through the issues has to scroll down to the bottom of the page to click the next link. Not really that bad, but I wonder if there is a way to incorporate the same functionality and skip the page scroll. Also, we might want to reword the text in the template - if Michael could not easily interpret the correct meaning from what was there, then other people will be confused as well.

I would be interested in developing a similar interface specifically for cover images, so that one could browse through a whole series of covers. For that, I think just the "in series" links make sense, although perhaps there is an argument for "next in continuity"?

-- Gopher 03:57, 30 November 2007 (PST)

Yeah, CG's pretty much got what I was going for - so far, I've only done the Damned and Rifts issues (e.g. Legion of Super-Heroes v4 #125, which is an example of them all being different):

• "Next, By Continuity" is the next non-cameo story in that continuity
• "Next, By Series" is the next LSH issue in that series (where two series run alongside each other, like LSHv4/Lgs, that's the next one in that particular series, but where one series replaces another, like the LSHv4/Lost/Worlds/TL sequence, I'm just going on to the next series in turn with that field), and
• "Next, By Publication" is the next non-cameo issue published, even if it's Elseworlds like Superboy's Legion or (most of) Universe Ablaze.

If it's confusing, suggestions for better terminology would be helpful :).

As for the bottom-of-page thing, well, the infoboxes (e.g. {{issue}}) have basic previous/next fields in them that should be visible from the top of the page, whereas I was beginning to get annoyed when I had to keep scrolling up the page when I reached the bottom or go via the category. - Reboot (SoM) talk page 09:55, 30 November 2007 (PST)

Some other possible wordings for clarity

• Next story in continuity, next issue in storyline (I lean toward the first, because the link might not lead to another issue)
• Next issue in series, next in series
• Next issue by publication date, next published issue, next issue published, next Legion publication, next publication

Another consideration - for the publication date link, what issue will be represented if there were multiple issues published the following week? All such issues? The first alphabetically? What if there was another issue published the same week as the featured issue - how do we determine which is considered "next" in that context if there are no indications given by the stories for the issues involved? In the LPH, I have tried to stick with alphabetizing issues published the same week, but we dont have that easy out in this instance. -- Gopher 07:30, 4 December 2007 (PST)